Incisions for Chest Tubes: The "Cut Downs" at Parkland

Robert Prudhomme · June 19, 2014

Hello Pat

The real question, in my mind, is not whether a bullet entered JFK's right lung and induced a tension pneumothorax but, rather, why the bullet did not exit JFK's chest; making a through and through wound. A similar question could be asked of the bullet that inflicted JFK's head wound.

It must be remembered that the 6.5mm Carcano bullet was a very long and robust FMJ bullet with a copper alloy jacket thicker than any other 6.5mm bullet. This bullet, because of its diameter and length, was an extremely stable bullet in flight and this, coupled with its round nose, gave it remarkable penetrating abilities, but not exceptional killing abilities. This is the reason Italian soldiers dubbed it the Humanitarian Rifle. It was not always the rifle's accuracy they were referring to. Their biggest complaint was that the 6.5mm Carcano bullet tended to go right through an enemy combatant without inflicting a great amount of damage. As one soldier quipped, the only advantage the Carcano had was that it was possible to shoot more than one person with the same bullet.

Clearly, for a bullet to enter JFK's right lung, and not exit the front of his chest, would require that bullet to be either a soft tipped hunting bullet or a hollow point bullet.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

Ken Davies · June 19, 2014

None of the Italian war vets that I talked to ever called a bullet a Humanitarian rifle.

Robert Prudhomme · June 19, 2014

I was referring to the 6.5mm Carcano rifle, not the actual bullet it fired. I assumed this would be understood.

Ken Davies · June 19, 2014

It may or may not have been understood. Some people here can't distinguish between firearm types, bullets, dimensions, etc.

A government training officer once told a group of us management types that we should never assume, because then we make an ass of u and me.

peace.

Ray Mitcham · June 20, 2014

None of the Italian war vets that I talked to ever called a bullet a Humanitarian rifle.

Why would they, Ken?

Did you mean "None of the Italian war vets that I talked to ever called a Carcano a humanitarian rifle"?

Edited June 20, 2014 by Ray Mitcham

Ken Davies · June 20, 2014

I was referring to Bob's use of the phrase.

Incidentally, the older fellows whom I talked to rarely spoke of the effects of bullets or the effectiveness of rifles or carbines.

They talked mostly of the politics of the war, the lack of training for soldiers, the lack of supplies,

battles in various locations, surrenders, being forced to work as POWs in German factories, etc. It was a terrible time for

most.

Robert Prudhomme · June 20, 2014

Okay, now that we have established just which particular thing I was referring to, would anyone care to offer an opinion on the actual topic of discussion; namely, the possibility a bullet ended up in JFK's right lung?

Robert Prudhomme · June 21, 2014

I see that a portion of my post, #65, has been quoted at the Reopen Kennedy Case forum.

I'm flattered, but I do wish people would quote the entire post and not just portions of it. The portion that was quoted makes me appear to support the myth of the Magic Bullet being able to pass through JFK and JBC, and certain people have a tendency to jump on things like this without investigating further.

To their credit, at least they have shown some interest in the topic.

P.S. BTW, Alan, it was pure chance I used the name "Traveller" at that other forum. It is the name of a large grey horse I own, and I use the name frequently on the Internet. As the forum in question did not have a policy requiring members to use their names, as most JFK forums do, I elected to use that one. I'm sure, though, that you will dream up a conspiracy theory involving this.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Kathy Beckett

Robert Prudhomme · August 15, 2014

Since my last post on this thread, I have been doing a great deal of research on what type of bullets were fired at JFK during the assassination. We know they could not have been full metal jackets for the following reasons:

1. A FMJ bullet would not have left a cloud of dust like fragments in JFK's skull.

2. A FMJ bullet that entered JFK's back and penetrated his right lung would have exited his right chest. As far as we know, no exit wound was reported by witnesses in JFK's chest.

3. A FMJ bullet that entered JFK's throat would have exited the back of his neck and destroyed much of his neck vertebrae on the way through. Once again, no exit wound was reported on the back of JFK's neck.

There is a theory that the bullet that struck JFK's back and only penetrated an inch was the result of a "short shot". As the theory goes, the gunpowder in the cartridge the bullet was fired from did not fully ignite and, as a result, the muzzle velocity of the bullet was greatly reduced, and only allowed for shallow penetration in the flesh of JFK's back. This is utter nonsense, and anyone who subscribes to this theory has not been around firearms very much. Bullets begin to drop as soon as they leave the barrel of a rifle, and the only thing that keeps them in the air is the amount of energy imparted to them by the charge of gunpowder. If a rifle is sighted in for, say, 100 yards, and the shooter aims at a target at 50 yards, the bullet should land close to the bullseye and should be about 2 inches high. However, should the velocity be drastically reduced and the shooter is still aiming at the same spot, the great drop in velocity will make the bullet fall to the ground long before it reaches the target. In the case of JFK, it likely would have landed somewhere behind the limo. Remember, it is called a "short shot" for a reason, as the bullet will fall short of its target.

I have found a type of bullet capable of doing all of the things listed. Coincidentally, these bullets were still being manufactured in Italy for the 6.5mm Carcano as late as 1953, and possibly well into the 60`s. I will share the details with you in the next post. In the meantime, I recommend Googling "frangible bullets" and visiting the following link: www.DRTammo.com/DRT-Technology

Edited August 15, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

Robert Prudhomme · December 31, 2015

I would like to revive this thread, as my understanding of some of the medical procedures involved has expanded slightly since my last post on this thread.

One glaring discrepancy between Parkland and Bethesda that has gone completely unnoticed until now is the placement of chest drainage tubes.

As reported by Parkland surgeons, bi-lateral (left and right) chest tubes were placed in the anterior chest walls of JFK. According to these surgeons, both chest tubes were placed in the 2nd intercostal space, at the mid-clavicular line. This translates to a point between the 2nd and 3rd rib, at the halfway point in the clavicle (collarbone).

Note the pointer is indicating a location between the 2nd and 3rd ribs, with a vertical line drawn from the mid-point of the clavicle (collarbone). As Ray Mitcham pointed out, an incision can be seen in JFK's left chest at almost precisely this point.

Now, the question is, was the right chest tube incision just out of view of the camera, or was there only a chest tube incision on the left side, completely contradicting evidence given by Parkland and Bethesda physicians? I tend to believe it is just out of view. However, the photo does prove the location of the incisions, and this is an accepted and popular location for a chest tube, as the diagram shows.

The glaring problem is in the autopsy report, where Humes reports the location of the chest tube incisions as being "low in the anterior chest". The 2nd intercostal space is anything BUT low on the anterior chest. However, there is another accepted location to place chest tubes; that being through the 4th or 5th intercostal space (between 4th and 5th or 5th and 6th ribs). The diagram below shows placement through the 5th intercostal space, and, as can be seen, the location is much lower than seen in the autopsy photo.

Has the autopsy photo caught Humes in an outright lie, when he claimed to see bi-lateral incisions low in the anterior chest, and the autopsy photo clearly shows an incision much higher up in the 2nd intercostal space? If Bethesda physicians did not tell the truth about the location of the chest tubes, did they also not tell the truth about the chest tube incisions being incomplete?

As I believe JFK had a tension pneumothorax in his right pleural cavity, resulting from the entrance wound in his back, and evidenced by blood and air seen by Perry in the mediastinum, I had incorrectly assumed a chest tube would only be inserted in the right pleural cavity. After speaking with a surgeon earlier this year, it was explained to me that, in an emergency situation, doctors had no way of knowing if there was not also damage to the left pleural cavity, and bi-lateral chest tubes would have been inserted as a precaution. Also, with assisted ventilation, positive pressure air (greater than atmospheric) was entering JFK's lungs, compounding the chances of pneumothoraces.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

Micah Mileto · July 1, 2019

Tom's interpretation on the chest tube issue was wrong.

In the words of the autopsy protocol, after the tracheotomy was performed at Parkland, "...bloody air was noted bubbling from the wound and an injury to the right lateral wall of the trachea was observed. Incisions were made in the upper anterior chest wall billaterally to combat possible subcutaneous emphysema"... "Situated on the anterior chest wall in the nipple line are bilateral 2 cm. long recent transverse surgical incisions into the subcutaneous tissue. The one on the left is situated 11 cm. cephalad to the nipple and the one on the right 8 cm. cephalad to the nipple. There is no hemorrhage or ecchymosis associated with these wounds" (WC D 77 [text]). "No hemorrhage" means no blood was found to have leaked into the body cavity, and Subcutaneous emphysema means air trapped beneath the skin. Subcutaneous emphysema is sometimes treated by making shallow incisions near the affected area – called "blowhole incisions" (Anestezjol Intens Ter. 2011 Apr-Jun, 43(2):93-7, The skin incisions (blow holes) for treatment of massive subcutaneous emphysema by Kubik T, Niewiński G, Wojtaszek M, Andruszkiewicz P, and Kański A; Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014 Dec,19(6):904-7, Modified blowhole skin incision using negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of ventilator-related severe subcutaneous emphysema by Bong Soo Son, Sungsoo Lee, Woo Hyun Cho, Jung Joo Hwang, Kil Dong Kim and Do Hyung Kim).

The Parkland staff said these defects in the chest were not blowhole incisions, they were the points where chest tubes were meant to be inserted. By most definitions, a chest tube procedure involves pushing the tube into the body cavity. The tube may then be used to drain excess blood, air, or to inflate a collapsed lung. Occasionally, subcutaneous emphysema is treated by tunneling a tube just beneath the skin (Tex Heart Inst J. 1999, 26(2): 129–131, The use of subcutaneous drains to manage subcutaneous emphysema by H M Sherif and D A Ott; Anaesthesia. 2001 Jun,56(6):593-4, Relief of tension subcutaneous emphysema with a small‐bore subcutaneous drain by M. J. C. Thomas R. Mal).

Lead autopsy pathologist Dr. James Humes and his assistant Dr. J. Thornton Boswell appeared to believe these two incisions were created with the intention of inserting chest tubes until the effort was abandoned. This is different than saying they were blowhole incisions, or incisions where tubes were inserted just beneath the skin.

From Dr. Humes' 3/16/1964 Warren Commission testimony:

[...] The report states, and Doctor Perry told me in telephone conversation that there was bubbling of air and blood in the vicinity of this wound when he made the tracheotomy. This caused him to believe that perhaps there had been a violation of one of the one or other of the pleural cavities by a missile. He, therefore, asked one of his associates, and the record is to me somewhat confused as to which of his associates, he asked one of his associates to put in a chest tube. This is a maneuver which is, was quite logical under the circumstances, and which would, if a tube that were placed through all layers of the wall of the chest, and the chest cavity had been violated one could remove air that had gotten in there and greatly assist respiration.

So when we examined the President in addition to the large wound which we found in conversation with Doctor Perry was the tracheotomy wound, there were two smaller wounds on the upper anterior chest.

Mr. DULLES - These are apparently exit wounds?

Commander HUMES - Sir, these were knife wounds, these were incised wounds on either side of the chest, and I will give them in somewhat greater detail.

These wounds were bilateral, they were situated on the anterior chest wall in the nipple line, and each were 2 cm. long in the transverse axis. The one on the right was situated 11 cm. above the nipple the one on the left was situated 11 cm. on the nipple, and the one on the right was 8 cm. above the nipple. Their intention was to incise through the President's chest to place tubes into his chest.

We examined those wounds very carefully, and found that they, however, did not enter the chest cavity. They only went through the skin. I presume that as they were performing that procedure it was obvious that the President had died, and they didn't pursue this.

[...]

[...] Now, we also made note of the types of wounds which I mentioned to you before in this testimony on the chest which were going to be used by the doctors there to place chest tubes. They also made other wounds. one on the left arm, and a wound on the ankle of the President with the idea of administering intravenous. blood and other fluids in hope of replacing the blood which the President had lost from his extensive wounds. [...]

(WC Vol. 2, p. 347 [text])

When interviewed for the Journal of the American Medical Association, Humes said "...We also noticed that the Dallas doctors had tried to place chest tubes in the front of the President’s chest, but the tubes had not gone in and we found no increase of blood or fluid in the pleural cavity" (JAMA, 5/27/1992, JFK's death - the plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy [text]).

From Humes' 2/13/1996 deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board:

Q. Did you notice any surgical incisions anywhere on the body of President Kennedy when you first saw him?

A. Yeah, there was a gaping defect that was obviously a tracheotomy incision in the anterior neck, and there were a couple of small--you never heard much about this, either. A couple of small incised wounds on the chest, and I forget--I wrote down, wherever I wrote it down, that it looked tome like somebody was going to think of putting in a chest tube. But they never did, because all they did was go through the skin. They obviously--I imagine they decided the President was deceased before they were going to pursue it. But somebody started, apparently, to insert chest tubes, which would not be an unreasonable thing to do. They were, you know, maybe two centimeters long, something like that, and between the ribs, low in the anterior chest.

(ARRB 2/13/1996 [text])

From Dr. Boswell's 2/26/1996 deposition:

Q. Do you have any impression as to whether the prosector should have been informed during the course of the autopsy or before, what the treating physicians in Dallas had learned during the time of the treatment of President Kennedy?

A. Well, it would have been nice, and we discussed that, actually, because when we first started doing the autopsy, there were marks on the body that we had difficulty--they had started to do cutdowns, and they made little incisions around the nipples, and there was no tubes or anything there. And we didn't know whether they were actually trying to get into vessels or going to get into the chest, whether he had had a hemothorax or something. [...]

(ARRB 2/26/1996 [text])

Drs. Ronald Jones, Charles Baxter, and Paul Peters were the ones who reportedly administered the tubes. Nurses Margaret Hinchliffe and Diana Bowron said they helped the doctors in this task. Nurse Patricia Hutton said that afterwards, she helped remove the tubes.

The autopsy pathologists claimed the body cavity was not violated, only reporting some bruising on the right lung and pleural cavity. What if Kennedy only received the "shallow" type of chest tube procedure? When we look closely at the language used by the Parkland staff when describing what happened, there is no room for this interpretation. Dr. Kemp Clark said in a 11/22/1963 press conference alongside Dr. Malcolm Perry "On my arrival, the resuscitative efforts, the tracheostomy, the administration of chest tubes to relieve any possible- to relieve any possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter" (ARRB MD 41 [text]). This statement may imply the chest tubes were inserted all the way into the pleural cavity, or were at least meant to. Clarks 11/22/1963 hospital report reads "Because of the lacerated trachea, anterior chest tubes were place in both pleural spaces. These were connected to sealed underwater drainage" (WC Vol. 17, p. 2 [text]). Clark said in his 3/21/1964 Warren Commission testimony "...As I recall, Dr. Perry stated that there was a small wound in the President's throat, that he made the incision for the tracheotomy through this wound. He discovered that the trachea was deviated so he felt that the missile had entered the President's chest. He asked for chest tubes then to be placed in the pleural cavities..." (WC Vol. 6, p. 18, [text]). This directly goes against the statements of the autopsy pathologists, who claimed the pleural cavity was NOT violated. Is it possible Clark was wrong, if he was going off what he heard Perry say? Clark did not actually help administer the tubes.

Dr. Robert McClelland said in his 3/21/1964 WC testimony "As well as I am aware, the tubes were both placed in. What this involves is simply putting a trocar, a large hollow tube, and that is put into the small incision, into the anterior chest wall and slipping the tube into the chest between a group of ribs for purposes of relieving any collection of air or fluid which is present in the lungs. The reason this was done was because it was felt that there was probably quite possibly a mediastinal injury with perhaps suffusion of blood and air into one or both pleural cavities" (WC Vol. 6, p. 30 [text]). This, too, suggests a deeper surgical defect than reported by the autopsy pathologists.

Dr. Ronald Jones said in his 3/24/1964 WC testimony "...as they made a deeper incision in the neck to isolate the trachea, they thought they saw some gush of air and the possibility of a pneumothorax on one side or the other was entertained, and since I was to the left of the President, I went ahead and put in the anterior chest tube in the second intercostal space". "Pneumothorax" means a collapsed lung. If the doctors suspected Kennedy may have suffered a pneumothorax, then the proper thing to do would have been to fully insert the tube into the pleural cavity. Also, "Intercostal space" means the layer of muscle between the ribs. When Jones was asked "Was that tube fully inserted, Doctor?", he responded "I felt that the tube was fully inserted, and this was immediately connected to underwater drainage". When asked "What do you mean by "connected to underwater drainage", Dr. Jones?", he replied "The tube is connected to a bottle whereby it aerates in the chest from a pneumothorax and as the patient breathes, the air is forced out under the water and produces somewhat of a suction so that the lung will reexpand and will not stay collapsed and this will give adequate aeration to the body, and we decided to go ahead and put in a chest tube on the opposite side; since I could not reach the opposite side due to the number of people that were working on the President. Dr. Baxter was over there helping Dr. Perry on that side, as well as Dr. Paul Peters, the assistant head of urology here, and the three of us then inserted the chest tube on the right side, primarily done by Dr. Baxter and Dr. Peters on the right side" (WC Vol. 6, p. 51 [text]).

During the 3/24/1964 WC testimony of Dr. Paul Peters, when asked "Did you put that chest tube all the way in on the right side?", Peters replied "That's our presumption—yes" (WC Vol. 6, p. 68 [text]).

Dr. Robert McClelland said in his 3/25/1964 WC testimony "Dr. Perry elected to perform a tracheotomy, and instructed some of the other physicians in the room to insert chest tubes, thoracotomy tubes" (WC Vol. 6, p. 1 [text]). "Thoracotomy" means a surgical procedure that goes into the pleural cavity.

Dr. Malcolm Perry said in his 3/25/1964 WC testimony "...The wound in the trachea was then enlarged to admit a cuffed tracheotomy tube to support respiration. I noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum. Although I saw no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right hemithorax, and I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for seal drainage..." (WC Vol. 6, p. 7 [text]). If the chest tubes were meant to drain blood and air originating from the INSIDE of the thorax, then just sticking them under the skin wouldn't have helped.

When Perry testified to the WC again on 3/30/1964, he said "I asked someone to put in a chest tube to allow sealed drainage of any blood or air which might be accumulated in the right hemothorax. This occurred while I was doing the tracheotomy. I did not know at the time when I inserted the tube but I was informed subsequently that Dr. Paul Peters, assistant professor of urology, and Dr. Charles Baxter, previously noted in this record, inserted the chest tube and attached it to underwater seal or drainage of the right pneumothorax". When asked "What is pneumothorax?", Perry replied "Hemothorax would be blood in the free chest cavity and pneumothorax would be air in the free chest cavity underlying collapse of the lungs". When discussing his phone contact with Dr. Humes, Perry said "The second conversation was in regard to the placement of the chest tubes for drainage of the chest cavity. And I related to him, as I have to you, the indications that prompted me to advise that this be done at that time". When asked "Dr. Perry, was the chest tube inserted in the President's chest abandoned or was that operation or operative procedure completed?", he replied "The chest tube, to be placed there, was supposedly placed into the pleural cavity. However, I have knowledge that it was not". When asked "And what was the reason for its not being placed into the plueral cavity?", Perry replied "I did not speak with certainty but at that point I think that we were at the end of the procedure and they just did not continue with it" (WC Vol. 3, p. 366 [text]). Why would Perry go along with the autopsy pathologists and contradict himself by saying that he "now" has knowledge the chest tubes WEREN'T inserted into the plueral cavity? He was there. Perry's colleagues seemed to indicate the tubes were inserted that far.

On 12/1/1971, Perry was interviewed by Harold Weisberg at the SWU School of Medicine. As Weisberg summarized, Perry said "... the autopsy is wrong on attributing the chest incisions to subcutaneous emphysema. He used both hands and gestured to each breast. He asked that this be done and the reason was for a "closed chorostomy". As Weisberg noted, it was as if Perry were saying "any child should know that" (Post Mortem by Harold Weisberg, p. 378, Epilogue). The transcription "chorostomy" is not a known medical procedure, however the suffix "ostomy" refers to "A surgical procedure creating an opening in the body for the discharge of body wastes".

On 1/11/1978, Perry was interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He explained "...there was some bruising and also some bubbly looking blood over there on the right seriatal pleura, upper portion of the chest, why I thought perhaps there might also have been a hemo or pneumothorax accident. I asked Dr. Baxter to put in a right chest tube, which he did. And Dr. Jones put in a left one, I think, about the same time". Again, chest tubes can only treat hemothorax or pneumothorax if they are fully inserted into the pleural cavity. Perry then said "...I didn't know whether there was or not. I surmised there might well be a hemothorax or pneumothorax because, not knowing the trajectory of the--of the missile, and when I saw the bruised apical pleura and there was some bubbly blood in that area, and I didn't know whether that blood had been frothed a little bit as a result of air coming out of the trachea in our attempts to breathe for him or whether it was coming out of a lung. And as a result, since a tension pneumothorax or serious chest injury could have obviously been a serious problem, why we elected to put in a chest tube. But the chest tube, I later learned, was not necessary because the chest cavity was not violated -- but I didn't know that at the time. It wasn't done diagnostically; it was done therapeutically". When asked "How did you determine that the pleural cavity was not violated?", he replied "Found that out later in the autopsy report"... "It's interesting to me -- and I'm not being critical-but it's interesting to me that the pathology report does not reflect that. The autopsy report said that those incisions were made to combat subcutaneous emphysema, which is not a -- in the current jargon -- a viable therapeutic technique" (HSCA Vol. 7, p. 292 [text]).

When Dr. Charles Carrico was interviewed by the HSCA on 1/11/1978, he said "...they performed a tracheostomy to assure an adequate airway and instructed some other physicians to insert chest tubes to try to rule out the possibility of any tension in the thorax which could impair his circulation also". When asked "What evidence did you obtain from the chest tubes?", Carrico said "Again, this is second-hand, I didn't do this. But, when the chest tubes were inserted, there was a small amount of blood, and small amount of air, which could have resulted from the actual surgical manipulations or could conceivably have been commensurate or compatible with some very small basically pneumothorax or hemothorax. But the chest tubes did not show any signs of massive injury and did not in their insertion didn't improve the situation". When asked "Did you have sufficient facts from which you could conclude that the pleural cavity was violated?", Carrico replied "No, we did not"... "We felt there was a high risk that it had been. After the chest tubes were inserted, we were sure that it was no longer potentially harmful to his life, But we still didn't know for sure whether it had been violated or not" (HSCA Vol. 7, p. 266 [text]).

On 8/27/1998, Dr. Perry said in a group interview for the Assassination Records Review Board "...I asked the chest tubes be put in because once you start pressure-assisted respiration, if he had a chest tube he might have a tension pneumothorax. And not knowing the extent of his head injury with any certainty, as Dr. Jones said, we didn't look at that. We were busy trying to get an airway. And so as it turned out, the chest tubes were not necessary. There was no injury to the chest cavity, but I didn't know that at the time. Not knowing how many shots there were and what was going on, as Dr. Baxter said, put the full-court press on; otherwise, we might lose him"... "when you start pressure-assisted respiration, if there's an injury to the lung you're liable to induce the tension pneumothorax, which causes a catastrophic cardio pulmonary collapse, so that's the reason I asked for chest tubes to be put in. Dr. Jones inserted one on the left and I guess Paul on the right side. It turned out those were unnecessary, but that was my request at that time. And the reason they were put in was because I asked for them" (ARRB 8/27/1998 [text]).

In 1999, Dr. Ronald Jones was featured in an article in the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. Jones said "I inserted a left anterior chest tube in the second interspace in the midclavicular line. Not knowing whether it was a right or left pneumothorax, Dr. PaulPeters, chairman of urology, and Dr. Charles Baxter, who up tothis point was assisting Dr. Perry with the tracheostomy—withsome assistance from me—inserted a right chest tube" (BUMC Proceedings, Vol. 12, No. 2). Again, the "second interspace" is a space between the ribs.

The evidence strongly suggests that not only were chest tubes used, they were fully inserted into the body cavity. If this is true, how could the autopsy pathologists have been so wrong? They examined the body for several hours. The best explanation is an open-ended one: The pathologists were not telling the full truth about the damage they observed to the inside of the body.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Micah Mileto

Micah Mileto · June 7, 2021

I thought of a possible motivation for lying about how deep the chest incisions went. A body alteration scinareo could have a bullet being removed from the torso using a surgical tool inserted into the pre-made chest cuts.

Incisions for Chest Tubes: The "Cut Downs" at Parkland

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

Announcements